On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 22:24, Steve Holden wrote:
> On 12/5/2010 10:11 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 13:06, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
On 12/5/2010 8:49 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd still like to defer beta1 until after the Mercurial
>>> switch (or alternatively, do the final 3.2 release from subversion
>>> as Raymond suggested).
>>
>> What would these proposed delayings / deferments achieve?
>
> They will pre
On 12/5/2010 10:11 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 13:06, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
>>> downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
>>> because people fundamentally prefer tgz files over
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:49 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd still like to defer beta1 until after the Mercurial
>>> switch (or alternatively, do the final 3.2 release from subversion
>>> as Raymond suggested).
>>
>> What would these proposed delayings / deferments achieve?
>
> The
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 13:11 -0800, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>
> If these are Solaris platforms we support then that's fine and we
> should keep tgz files, but if these are platforms we no longer care
> about then I say the lives of release managers should be simplified by
> cutting tgz files
2010/12/5 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> Looking at download statistics, for the 2.7 release, in July, we
On Dec 5, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
> downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
> because people fundamentally prefer tgz files over tar.bz2?
I prefer tgz over tar.bz2 because my fingers are
>> That, in turn, is easy to answer: yes, there are. Certain Solaris
>> releases had gzip available (even though /usr/bin/tar wouldn't know
>> how to invoke it), but no bzip2 utility.
>
> If these are Solaris platforms we support then that's fine and we
> should keep tgz files, but if these are pl
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 13:06, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
>> downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
>> because people fundamentally prefer tgz files over tar.bz2?
>
> These questions are difficult to an
> Well, is it more popular because that is just what people are used to
> downloading or the first download link on the web page? Or is it
> because people fundamentally prefer tgz files over tar.bz2?
These questions are difficult to answer with the download stats alone.
If you really want to know
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:43, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 05.12.2010 20:39, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>>> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>>> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ra
> As for the .zip version, I've not found any requests for a source
> download with Windows-specific newlines. I suppose that developers
> either check out directly from SVN, or have decompression programs
> and editors that can cope.
Indeed, Windows users should be able to cope with the tgz just
Am 05.12.2010 20:40, schrieb Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven:
> -On [20101205 20:23], "Martin v. Löwis" (mar...@v.loewis.de) wrote:
>> For those of us involved in the release process, every single file is a
>> big problem, indeed. Seriously.
>
> Correct me if wrong, b
>> Personally, I'd still like to defer beta1 until after the Mercurial
>> switch (or alternatively, do the final 3.2 release from subversion
>> as Raymond suggested).
>
> What would these proposed delayings / deferments achieve?
They will prevent the mess from happening that would happen if we sw
Am 05.12.2010 20:39, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> Looking at download statistics, for the 2.7 re
-On [20101205 20:07], Antoine Pitrou (solip...@pitrou.net) wrote:
>What would these proposed delayings / deferments achieve?
Peace and quiet for the release team during the release.
Why confound the situation by forcing a migration of the VCS in the middle
of release time? It's
-On [20101205 20:23], "Martin v. Löwis" (mar...@v.loewis.de) wrote:
>For those of us involved in the release process, every single file is a
>big problem, indeed. Seriously.
Correct me if wrong, but isn't rolling up a tgz, tbz2, or txz not a matter
of repeating the same act
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
Looking at download statistics, for the 2.7 release, in July, we had
these numbers of downloads:
Pyt
> I mean, seriously, is providing some extra files in a particular compression
> format the biggest of our problems?
For those of us involved in the release process, every single file is a
big problem, indeed. Seriously.
Regards,
Martin
___
python-commi
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 20:00 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> Am 05.12.2010 12:11, schrieb Georg Brandl:
> > Am 05.12.2010 11:26, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
> >> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 5, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> >>
Am 05.12.2010 12:11, schrieb Georg Brandl:
> Am 05.12.2010 11:26, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Raymond Hettinger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 5, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
Do we wait until after the 3.2 release now, or
just until after the holidays?
Am 05.12.2010 19:16, schrieb M.-A. Lemburg:
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>>
>> .tgz - 13 M
2010/12/5 Fred Drake :
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> (btw, someone mentioned bandwidth -- are we paying for bandwidth? what
>> fraction of the python.org traffic is downloads?)
>
> Even if the PSF isn't paying for bandwidth (and I don't know either
> way), users on the
Georg Brandl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> .tgz - 13 MB
> .tar.bz2 - 11 MB
> .tar.xz - 8.6 MB
I've never
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> (btw, someone mentioned bandwidth -- are we paying for bandwidth? what
> fraction of the python.org traffic is downloads?)
Even if the PSF isn't paying for bandwidth (and I don't know either
way), users on the other end often are. This is u
2010/12/5 Georg Brandl :
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> .tgz - 13 MB
> .tar.bz2 - 11 MB
> .tar.xz - 8.6 MB
tgz (and
Am 05.12.2010 16:56, schrieb Senthil Kumaran:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:16:48PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>> tarballs.
>
> Yes, it is necessary. People sometimes just expect it from an Open
> Source project. (At least, wh
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:16:48PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs.
Yes, it is necessary. People sometimes just expect it from an Open
Source project. (At least, when someone is going to try it for the
first time)
> If
Am 05.12.2010 14:58, schrieb Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven:
> -On [20101205 13:58], Georg Brandl (g.bra...@gmx.net) wrote:
>>That's why I said "in addition to".
>
> My mistake, read over that.
>
>>It was just a thought I had while I watched the files u
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 12:16 +0100, Georg Brandl a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
> tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
> to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
>
> .tgz - 13 MB
> .t
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 14:58, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
wrote:
> I just wondered why, in light of my having missed the "in addition to", we
> would need to move to xz only, given that disk space is relatively cheap as
> opposed to the real code, et cetera.
Because bandwidth is much more expen
-On [20101205 13:58], Georg Brandl (g.bra...@gmx.net) wrote:
>That's why I said "in addition to".
My mistake, read over that.
>It was just a thought I had while I watched the files upload through my
>rather slow link. I promise I won't disturb you again tackling our
Am 05.12.2010 13:33, schrieb Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven:
> -On [20101205 12:19], Georg Brandl (g.bra...@gmx.net) wrote:
>>I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>>tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>&g
-On [20101205 12:19], Georg Brandl (g.bra...@gmx.net) wrote:
>I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
>tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
>to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
Given that xz is only prov
Hi,
I wonder if it's still necessary to provide .tar.bz2 and .tgz source
tarballs. If anything, it would be nice to provide .tar.xz in addition
to .tar.bz2, which has a nicer compression ratio:
.tgz - 13 MB
.tar.bz2 - 11 MB
.tar.xz - 8.6 MB
Georg
_
Am 05.12.2010 11:26, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>> Do we wait until after the 3.2 release now, or
>>> just until after the holidays?
>>
>> +1 for waiting until after the 3.2 release.
>
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> Do we wait until after the 3.2 release now, or
>> just until after the holidays?
>
> +1 for waiting until after the 3.2 release.
> It is just around the corner.
It would be nice to h
On Dec 5, 2010, at 2:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> Do we wait until after the 3.2 release now, or
> just until after the holidays?
+1 for waiting until after the 3.2 release.
It is just around the corner.
Raymond
___
python-committers mailing list
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 16:25, Georg Brandl wrote:
> As sad as it is, that's true. It's just unfair to developers and
> infrastructure providers to switch on such a short notice without a
> testing period.
Yeah, I'm very sorry. The last step in the conversion has proven
pretty annoying to get rig
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Hirokazu Yamamoto
wrote:
> On 2010/12/05 2:42, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>
>> This is it: no more features into py3k for a few months please.
>> And no commits at all for now, except if you ask on #python-dev.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Georg
>
> Sorry, maybe I missed this mail. :
40 matches
Mail list logo
